Update: came back 2yrs later to try it again. Episode about Russell city/German reparations talking about minority Russell City residents receiving $2250 for the land 1965. Then the reporter comes in and compared it to today’s price. My grandparents bought a home in 1957 for $13,000 in Los Altos hills. Family sold years ago buts it’s now worth $6 million. The ethical reporter thing to do is compare the price to similar properties in the region at the time. But no. They have to be intentionally dishonest (or maybe they don’t have the intellectual acuity to realize this). If this org goes bankrupt, some of it falls on this administration, but the people running KQED are also to blame. Shame. It used to be good and fairly non-biased.
Previous review:
I love learning about California since I live here, but it’s very frustrating to listen to these reporters with purported “in depth” reporting purposely neglect certain aspects of episodes. I just listened to a show on how the native peoples land was stolen and they’re slowly buying it back. The very next episode played on how black Americans settled Allensworth. In neither episode did they mention that even these black Americans were on stolen land. Why purposely ignore this fact? One needs to bring it up. If you’re stating that these African-Americans were wrongfully treated/removed, you need to bring up that the land was all original native land. This is the same issue with Bakers beach. Everyone ignores the fact that before the Baker family owned it, it was native peoples land. it’s like NPR doesn’t want to touch the subject, and it needs to be addressed. I want to know how people reconcile this fact. Like ask the people they are interviewing what do they think about being on stolen land? Every time NPR reports on land, they should state historically what tribe was on that land. There’s other issues like when talking about the homeless, they always neglect to ask where these homeless people originally arose from. Some people come out to California for a dream and yes they have housing when they get here, but they lose their housing. Ask them where they graduated high school and how long ago was it. They may have only been here a few months, and only come with money that’s in their pocket & easily become homeless because they weren’t prepared. Or about Japanese internment camps left empty housing and the African migration south took that opportunity to move in those homes & take those jobs that were left open by the removal of the Japanese. No one talked about or asked anyone what they thought about that aspect. It’s like the reporters want to remain willfully ignorant or maybe they just lack the critical thinking skills needed to figure out these questions need to be asked. These stories are not “in depth” like the show summary states.
